Worst Terms and Conditions Offenders of All Time

Wagershare
Wagershare makes our list (and plenty of rogue lists) thanks to some slippery terms buried deep in their T&C. What grabbed the attention of CAP, Affiliate Guard Dog and just about every other affiliate advocacy site was the introduction of a minimum activity clause.

In this case that clause state that won’t pay out if the affiliate doesn’t bring at least one player every three months. While that may not sound unreasonable, experienced affiliate know that the cyclical nature of the business can mean long dry spells.

For most newbies it’s hard for them to get five (5) new depositing players in six months, let alone in the first month of joining an affiliate program. And sometimes even established affiliates have a bad month too.

Besides, It costs programs next to nothing; if any cost at all, to have affiliate on their books.

Terms like these are ludicrous and IMHO indicates any program using a clause(s) like these should be avoided. It’s highly unethical, dodgy and not to mention a crooked way to conduct business online.

In relation to Wager Profits, this is nothing more than an affiliate “FU” clause. If they’re pulling stunts like this then they’re probably shafting players too!

Actually I think it is a bad deal all round as Wagerprofits will be losing a whole big slice of small affiliates… Basically they are saying that they only want to work with big affiliates… but I bet they will let anyone join

Either way if they do want to work with big affiliates only they still shouldnt have this clause. They should just vet affiliates and if they meet their requirements allow them to join.

Totally agree with you Alex.
Which leads me and I’m sure others to see this as an evil clause, designed in nature to rape affiliates of their tagged players and rightful income. It’s disgusting behaviour and definitely an unethical business practice.